Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the state transition (site stays pending), the artifact returned (verify_file_path + verify_content), and where that artifact is served (/.well-known/devdome-analytics.txt) — real behavioral context. It stops short of mentioning idempotency or what happens on a duplicate domain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the post-condition and return artifact. No filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned verification fields and their serving path, plus the pending-until-verified state. It omits auth/permission requirements and behavior on an already-registered domain, but for a one-parameter create tool this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the meaning of 'domain' including the bare-domain format example. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a website to the account') and immediately differentiates itself from the read-oriented siblings (list_sites, get_stats) by describing the create action and its verification lifecycle. An agent can tell this is the entry point for onboarding a new domain without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The lifecycle clause ('the site stays pending until verified') gives clear context that this is the first step of a two-step flow, implicitly routing to verify_site. However, it never names verify_site as the alternative/next tool, so the routing is left to inference rather than stated explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.